Singapore: A country or a global city? And what does
that mean for Singaporeans? (AFP file
photo)
By Seah Chiang Nee
In the midst of a historical demographic change, Singapore’s
hard-headed government seems less inclined nowadays to talk about
national identity than it once was.
This is a departure from the earlier post-independence years,
when promoting values like patriotism and nation-bonding were top
priorities.
Today, they remain important goals but are more discussed among
citizens than the policy-makers.
Many Singaporeans are worried about the erosion of national
fervour in an island state bloated by the recent arrivals of
hundreds of thousands of foreigners.
On the government’s part, priority seems to have shifted – at
least for now – from promoting nationalism to persuading
Singaporeans “to embrace foreigners”.
I suppose there’s a time for everything.
It probably seems untimely for the authorities to preach an
intensification of national feelings at a time when so many
foreigners – and new migrants – are settling here.
“They are caught in a bind. Harping on national sentiments now
could be seen as isolating the new arrivals,” said a neighbourhood
doctor.
With its short history, Singapore still needs to continue to
build a national identity among Singaporean citizens or risk losing
its economic achievements, he said.
The question is: How, when citizens may soon become a
minority?
Recent conflicting remarks by ministers have not helped to
clarify to citizens where they are heading – or indeed if Singapore
is a country or merely a global city.
Law (and Home Affairs) Minister K. Shanmugam surprised everyone
when he told visiting American lawyers that Singapore was not a
country.
He was defending the government’s human rights records. The
minister said Singapore was viewed as a deviation from the
democratic norm because it was seen primarily as a country.
“This is where most people make a mistake. I have tried to
explain that we are different. We are a city. We are not a
country,” he said.
It sparked off a public debate, especially among young national
servicemen sworn to defend the nation. Baffled party members sought
an explanation.
In an indirect effort to control damage, Finance Minister
Tharman Shanmugaratnam said Singapore could not afford to have
a ratio of more than 40% foreign workers.
“We felt we are more comfortable with that than thinking we are
nothing but a global city. We are also a country,” he said.
In an earlier unrelated event, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said
that despite its achievements, Singapore was not yet a nation.
“Are we a nation yet? I will not say we are. We’re in
transition. Please remember this is an ideal which we may not
completely reach, but because we have this ideal, we’ll continue to
make progress,” he said.
All this talk has not gone down well with Singaporeans, who find
it incomprehensible and reflective of government uncertainty.
Songshus blogged: “From my observation over the last two or
three decades, it seems to me that our government is only trying to
succeed economically.
“We should also develop on other fronts that would bind our
people together, and promote cultural and identity awareness. The
average Singaporean really does not know what future direction we
are heading towards.”
Critics of the government, however, are less surprised.
For years, they have accused the People’s Action Party (PAP) of
governing Singapore like a profitable corporation, even paying
themselves as Board members.
Increasingly during the past decade, the political leaders had
been talking more of Singapore as a global city.
During his recent visit to Moscow, MM Lee said his vision of
Singapore was that it would no longer be seen as just an Asian city
one day – but as cosmopolitan and connected to the world.
In view of this line of thinking, Shanmugam’s description of his
country as a city – not a country – should not be surprising.
The question is: what will happen to the national identity that
the PAP had wanted to forge from day one of independence?
Can it work with so many foreigners coming and going as though
it were a hotel?
Some analysts noticed that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
who faces a tough general election soon, recently talked of wanting
to build – not nationalism – but “The Singapore Spirit”.
Not many people remember now, but in 1989, Singapore’s leaders
called for a “national ideology” to prevent a “harmful drift
towards Westernisation” and promote a national identity.
No one bets it will be revived anytime soon.
While moulding a national identity has not been a popular
leadership topic these days, the same cannot be said of
Singaporeans. Many are pushing for a stronger rallying effort.
During National Day, another popular discussion centred on the
question: “Will the rally make us feel for Singapore again?”
Some Singaporeans believe the country now has an
identity crisis as a result of foreign arrivals now making up
one third of the population.
Others agree that while it is causing some social dislocation,
“we should not blame the whole problem on the government”.
Muhamad Nur appealed to all to treat Singapore as a nation – not
just a city. “This is our only solution.”
A visiting student from Switzerland, Christabel, disagreed with
those who declared that Singapore has no identity or is a sanitised
corporate state.
“Remember as a country, you are only around 40 years old.
Identity will come naturally, given more time.”
Source:
http://sg.yfittopostblog.com/2010/12/21/dilemma-over-singapores-national-identity/
